Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?

[jshell]

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that'll work oop North, at night, in winter and without batteries...

It works in other far more Northern nations.

Perhaps you should look to the future and not the, not so good old days of coal fires and smog.

If we finally manage to prefabricate houses in factories we are in with a chance.

FWIW, I think we will crack renewables. But not for a while, a long while. In the meantime clean burning, smogless gas is where it's at. Safe, dependable, plentiful, controllable, cheap gas. Mmmmmmmm

[dandarez]

turbobloke said:

Camoradi said:

Seventy said:

Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.

Given the past recipients of Time Person of the Year, I wouldn't necessarily this as a win for Greta anyway. She joins Jo Stalin and Richard Nixon...

I note that Abu Bakr-al-Baghdhadi was a runner up a few years back, but was beaten by Angela Merkel for her handling of the migrant crisis

It's far more hilarious than that! People's memories, eh? Cast your mind back to Time's front cover 2007, one guy name of Putin!
Funnier still, was the runner-up. That climate saviour, Al Gore. Didn't he star in that film Last of the Mohicans Polar Bears?

One of his disciples (well, he was in a band!) was Bono.

Bono wrote back then that Al was the kind of leader those times required.
Not as a President - God and the Electoral College had given him a different job.
Al, Bono said, was at work repositioning his country from the inside out as a leader in clean energy and along the way restoring faith in the US as a moral powerhouse which can lead a great, global spiritual revival as the temperature rises. (I think he meant blood pressure!)
Bono went on: 'This isn't loopy 60s stuff or I wouldn't tune in.'

Amusing, even hilarious, when you can look back, eh?

[Nickgnome]

turbobloke said:

Quite so. The effects of energy intake also depend on what energy is being expended.

I'm unaware of what happens on the food side with RN or Army initial officer training. With IOT in the RAF quite a few years ago, the food on offer was deliberately packed with sugar. Custard was so full of the stuff a spoon would stand upright in it. In a conversation with one of the corporals who was involved with the meals side, it transpired that depending on the particular week in the early stages of IOT they were told to make it difficult to have an intake below 6000 kcal per day and equally difficult to get much above 8000 kcal. Normally 2500 would be adequate for an adult male. It was difficult to eat much for two reasons, one because of the sugar and two because extreme exercise dulls the appetite.

At the mo we've learned that bacon isn't lethal - unless you choke on it - but the biggest question mark of all remains over cholesterol. Overfeed a small herbivore (rabbit) with cholesterol and transfer the results to a larger omnivore. What could possibly go wrong.

Of course it's in everyone's interests to seek and follow medical advice. Then there's the parallel freedom to look into things a bit more and decide for yourself.

Perhaps look at athletes diets, not too much sugar in those but still in the 6000 calorie range for some.

Calorie intake depends on age and activity. 2500 is quite high for a sedentary lifestyle of an adult male. The requirement also reduces with age.

Personal freedom comes with a price. Health and NHS. Who should pay for those who burden the NHS through incorrect diet?

Top tip. Drinking alcohol whilst stood at the bar doesn’t count, or so a few of us have agreed.

[jshell]

dandarez said:

turbobloke said:

Camoradi said:

Seventy said:

Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.

Given the past recipients of Time Person of the Year, I wouldn't necessarily this as a win for Greta anyway. She joins Jo Stalin and Richard Nixon...

I note that Abu Bakr-al-Baghdhadi was a runner up a few years back, but was beaten by Angela Merkel for her handling of the migrant crisis

It's far more hilarious than that! People's memories, eh? Cast your mind back to Time's front cover 2007, one guy name of Putin!
Funnier still, was the runner-up. That climate saviour, Al Gore. Didn't he star in that film Last of the Mohicans Polar Bears?

One of his disciples (well, he was in a band!) was Bono.

Bono wrote back then that Al was the kind of leader those times required.
Not as a President - God and the Electoral College had given him a different job.
Al, Bono said, was at work repositioning his country from the inside out as a leader in clean energy and along the way restoring faith in the US as a moral powerhouse which can lead a great, global spiritual revival as the temperature rises. (I think he meant blood pressure!)
Bono went on: 'This isn't loopy 60s stuff or I wouldn't tune in.'

Amusing, even hilarious, when you can look back, eh?

It would be funnier if Bono wasn't part of the Soros/Greta supporting mechanism.

[turbobloke]

dandarez said:

turbobloke said:

Camoradi said:

Seventy said:

Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.

Given the past recipients of Time Person of the Year, I wouldn't necessarily this as a win for Greta anyway. She joins Jo Stalin and Richard Nixon...

I note that Abu Bakr-al-Baghdhadi was a runner up a few years back, but was beaten by Angela Merkel for her handling of the migrant crisis

It's far more hilarious than that! People's memories, eh? Cast your mind back to Time's front cover 2007, one guy name of Putin!
Funnier still, was the runner-up. That climate saviour, Al Gore. Didn't he star in that film Last of the Mohicans Polar Bears?

One of his disciples (well, he was in a band!) was Bono.

Bono wrote back then that Al was the kind of leader those times required.
Not as a President - God and the Electoral College had given him a different job.
Al, Bono said, was at work repositioning his country from the inside out as a leader in clean energy and along the way restoring faith in the US as a moral powerhouse which can lead a great, global spiritual revival as the temperature rises. (I think he meant blood pressure!)
Bono went on: 'This isn't loopy 60s stuff or I wouldn't tune in.'

Amusing, even hilarious, when you can look back, eh?

Holy carp!

[anonymous-user]

Seventy said:

Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.

She has attained deity status now from that photo

[Nickgnome]

jshell said:

FWIW, I think we will crack renewables. But not for a while, a long while. In the meantime clean burning, smogless gas is where it's at. Safe, dependable, plentiful, controllable, cheap gas. Mmmmmmmm

It’s not cheap and it’s shipped into the UK. I accept that gas will be required for the next few decades. I agree the renewables thing is making steady progress.

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go. We now have LED lighting throughout . I think we work out at about. 2-3w/m2 installed and still needs to be dimmed. It’s a fraction of the previous lighting.

[anonymous-user]

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

[jshell]

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

FWIW, I think we will crack renewables. But not for a while, a long while. In the meantime clean burning, smogless gas is where it's at. Safe, dependable, plentiful, controllable, cheap gas. Mmmmmmmm

It’s not cheap and it’s shipped into the UK. I accept that gas will be required for the next few decades. I agree the renewables thing is making steady progress.

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go. We now have LED lighting throughout . I think we work out at about. 2-3w/m2 installed and still needs to be dimmed. It’s a fraction of the previous lighting.

Until we crack gadgets, electrical goods, standby consumption, tat consumption and the fallacy of EV's, then nothing will change.

[Gary C]

Langweilig said:

Oh, you little BRAT!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brazilian-president-call...

Reading through the comments, it's surprising to read that some environmentalists hate Greta.

She is just a puppet.

Can't stand her public profile but I do worry about how she is being used.

[pequod]

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

Both are true, but how to persuade the vast and varied populations around the planet that this is necessary to sustainable human habitation, is the question.

[Gary C]

pequod said:

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

Both are true, but how to persuade the vast and varied populations around the planet that this is necessary to sustainable human habitation, is the question.

WWIII would do it !

[anonymous-user]

Gary C said:

pequod said:

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

Both are true, but how to persuade the vast and varied populations around the planet that this is necessary to sustainable human habitation, is the question.

WWIII would do it !

Does she ever mention plastic or just CO2 from the Capitalist pigs?

Plastic will be our downfall, yet FA has been done about it

[Dont like rolls]

Gary C said:

pequod said:

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

Both are true, but how to persuade the vast and varied populations around the planet that this is necessary to sustainable human habitation, is the question.

WWIII would do it !

Pandemic, wars destroy the infrastructure but pandemics rids us of the weaker ones and is more effective in higher populated areas.
On the whole and all things considered you could say it would be a good thing.

Edited by Dont like rolls on Wednesday 11th December 18:23

[Gary C]

Dont like rolls said:

Gary C said:

pequod said:

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

Both are true, but how to persuade the vast and varied populations around the planet that this is necessary to sustainable human habitation, is the question.

WWIII would do it !

Pandemic, wars destroy the infrastructure.

True
But without the infrastructure, we wouldn't need the energy either !

Mud huts, yey !

[Pesty]

Gary C said:

True
But without the infrastructure, we wouldn't need the energy either !

Mud huts, yey !

They want you in pods eating insects.

While they live in mansions in Martha’s Vineyard.

[amusingduck]

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

Just playing with options for my 35+ yr CETV value from International service. You?

I don’t work anymore.

So you already said and everyone took the piss right out of you. You need a hobby. Oh, and being less of a tt would be pretty cool too!

Actually only those with whom I disagree as they have no basis in fact for their arguments. Pity you can’t help yourself and revert to type. If you had been paying attention you should know my hobbies.

as if you've dropped that again!

[anonymous-user]

The people raising instances of ‘negative’ people being selected by Time don’t appear to understand the selection criteria.

[pequod]

Gary C said:

Dont like rolls said:

Gary C said:

pequod said:

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

In my opinion demand reduction is way to go.

Absolutely! I think population control is the only answer.

Both are true, but how to persuade the vast and varied populations around the planet that this is necessary to sustainable human habitation, is the question.

WWIII would do it !

Pandemic, wars destroy the infrastructure.

True
But without the infrastructure, we wouldn't need the energy either !

Mud huts, yey !

Would a pandemic infection solve world overpopulation? Nope, just make a dent. Remember the bubonic plague wiped out an estimated 200 million and that was when the global population was a fraction of today, but still didn't stop the explosion of human beings across the planet within a few centuries.

What numbers are sustainable, given we are already close to 8 billion, and all those developing nation states will be expecting the same comfortable lifestyle as the western world?

[Gary C]

pequod said:

Would a pandemic infection solve world overpopulation? Nope, just make a dent. Remember the bubonic plague wiped out an estimated 200 million and that was when the global population was a fraction of today, but still didn't stop the explosion of human beings across the planet within a few centuries.

What numbers are sustainable, given we are already close to 8 billion, and all those developing nation states will be expecting the same comfortable lifestyle as the western world?

Which is why I suggested WWIII